Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 4, 2024, 7:07 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
#91
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
Quote:The passage with the mention of Jesus does not fit. If it is removed, the preceding passage and the following passage make perfect sense without the Jesus passage.


Since the passage is interpolated ( i.e. a forgery) we do not know if it is a total insertion, IOW there was nothing between the two actual passages or if there was something there which triggered the forgery at that point.

The passage before deals with Pilate taking money from the temple treasury to build an aqueduct. According to Josephus many tens of thousands of people rose up in protest and Pilate slaughtered a great many of them. Frankly, this sounds like typical Josephan exaggeration.
I bet the fucking priests were upset about having their precious treasure diverted to such a mundane purpose and Josephus was from a priestly family. The populace though rioting against an increased water supply? Not so likely.

As the sketch goes: What have the Romans ever done for us?
The Aqueducts?

So perhaps there was something about some crime committed by a Y'shua bar Yosep which resulted in a number of jews getting killed. Whatever it was did not attract the attention of Origen when he cited Book XVIII of Antiquites in Contra Celsus. There was nothing which led him to suggest that the jews were later punished for killing jesus, even though he wished for such a reference. Instead he invented a tale based on Book XX which claimed it was the death of James, brother of jesus, which caused the destruction of the city. The problem is that Josephus never said that. The upshot of James' sentence was merely the dismissal of the high priest who orchestrated it.

So the TF is most likely a total forgery and the lesser reference in Book XX is just a later xtian scribe seeing what he wished to see.

The idea that Josephus the Pharisee would equate some smelly jew from Galilee with a christos - an anointed king or high priest - is next to nil.
Reply
#92
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
(November 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote: HM, did you pull the persecution card after using Pliny as a reliable source in your "case for christ"? I'm afraid that won't work........if Pliny is reliable then the tales of christian martyrdom are not - and that rules out Tacitus (as well as Suetonius) as a reliable source for a factual narrative of early christianity. It also puts the coals to any claims about christianity's vast spread. I'm afraid that you're going to have to make a choice between these competing claims if you wish to maintain the fantasy of having historical support for the articles of your faith.

You say that as if believing contradictory things is a problem for him. Evidence suggests otherwise... Big Grin
Reply
#93
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
(November 22, 2014 at 12:03 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:
(November 22, 2014 at 11:00 am)Simon Moon Wrote: The entire passage is possibly an interpolation. Even without the bits you highlight, the rest of it does not fit in the narrative of the preceding and following paragraphs in Jospehus' text.

Nonsense. The entire passage isn't an interpolation. It is obvious what parts are interpolated and what part isn't. Josephus was a Jewish historian, writing about stuff pertaining to the Jews, and it would be difficult to write about the history of the Jews in first century Palestine and not mention Jesus is some way, shape, or form, which he did. The only question would be to what length and in what context...but Jesus would be mentioned, nevertheless.

Interesting that you bring up context. Maj, do you consider the 'life and resurrection' of JC as a sad calamity? Because Josephus apparently did.

Chapter 3 of Antiquities Of The Jews XVIII begins with Pilate facing protests in Caeserea over the first of his policies to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. He then sequestered funds from the Temple to provide Jerusalem with a new aqueduct and prepared his troops there for further protests. The results were bloody:

Quote:1. BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

Then comes the TF passage, stuck like a commercial break in the narrative. Josephus, a lifelong orthodox Jew, apparently creams his pants over this messiah figure:

Quote:3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Immediately afterwards, we get this:

Quote:4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs.

and so on.

Seriously, the CGI shit in the Star Wars special editions blended in more seamlessly than this.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#94
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
(November 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote: HM, did you pull the persecution card after using Pliny as a reliable source in your "case for christ"? I'm afraid that won't work........if Pliny is reliable then the tales of christian martyrdom are not - and that rules out Tacitus (as well as Suetonius) as a reliable source for a factual narrative of early christianity. It also puts the coals to any claims about christianity's vast spread. I'm afraid that you're going to have to make a choice between these competing claims if you wish to maintain the fantasy of having historical support for the articles of your faith.

you mean this card.

B-but jesus did exist i pray and believe in him and god and he makes my life better why are you saying this to me Sad i know he is real your persecuting me your saying what i believe in is not true <- seen it all before its practically the same when people use common sense on folks and knowledge. it doesn't matter what history and proof says they still deny it.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today. 


Code:
<iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;visual=true"></iframe>
Reply
#95
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
(November 22, 2014 at 10:55 am)His_Majesty Wrote:


You've missed the main point. You said you would prove that Jesus existed and then provided non-contempary sources mostly about Christians and not directly about Jesus. The one direct reference without reliance on the Christian cult has been tampered with. That is in no way proof.

However, the lack of complementary sources doesn't prove that there wasn't a Jewish man named Jesus who preached and was crucified.

Case unproven
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#96
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
The one question that should spring to mind is why should these interpolations and tampered evidence even need to exist at all, if there was even a possibility of the genuine article?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#97
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
(November 22, 2014 at 4:15 pm)Stimbo Wrote: The one question that should spring to mind is why should these interpolations and tampered evidence even need to exist at all, if there was even a possibility of the genuine article?

This. We don't need to reach this far to find evidence for a lot of other historical figures, but when we get to Jesus, who was supposedly magic and in H_M's mind so super influential, suddenly we only get equivocations, tu quoque fallacies, and tangential sources at best.

Really makes you think. Thinking
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#98
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
Quote:1. That he lived
2. That he was a wise teacher
3. He laid down a new law
4. He was crucified..by Pontius Pilate
5. Was crucified during the reign of Tiberius
6. The Jews were the cause of his death
7. He was worshipped
8. A mischievous superstition arose after his death by his followers
9. This "mischievous superstition" originated in Judea
10. His followers lived according to his laws
11. His followers were called Christians
12. Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire by 64AD

I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.

Curious, that.
Reply
#99
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
(November 22, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I note, than in a thread titled "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" that the summary of "facts" the OP claims to be able to demonstrate, that the resurrection is not among them.

Curious, that.

In all honesty, he says this is only part 1. Meant to establish Jesus' historical existence first.

They he's going to bring out the Big Guns and prove the resurrection.

What's curious is that the Biblical 'God' and 'Jesus' character need a dishonest, willfully ignorant agent like H_M to represent them, when they should be more than up for the job themselves, or at the very least, pick better advocates than H_M.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
I can give him that much - essentially, he's trying to do what many people don't even bother to do, which is demonstrate that there's a 'there' there first. Unfortuantely, given that this is an astonishingly tough row to hoe (especially the way he's been going about it), I don't see there ever being a part two.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  To Atheists: Who, in your opinion, was Jesus Christ? JJoseph 52 2754 June 12, 2024 at 11:01 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  The power of Christ... zwanzig 60 4882 August 30, 2023 at 8:33 pm
Last Post: Bucky Ball
  Jesus Christ is the Beast 666 Satan Emerald_Eyes_Esoteric 36 8297 December 18, 2022 at 10:33 am
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Creating Christ JML 26 3411 September 29, 2022 at 9:40 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  So has Christ returned TheClearCleanStuff 31 3524 May 20, 2022 at 12:35 pm
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  CHRIST THE KICKER…… BrianSoddingBoru4 15 1526 January 3, 2022 at 10:00 am
Last Post: brewer
  CHRIST THE KILLER..... ronedee 31 3727 December 26, 2021 at 7:11 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
Rainbow Why I believe in Jesus Christ Ai Somoto 20 2939 June 30, 2021 at 4:25 pm
Last Post: Nay_Sayer
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 16918 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Consecrated virgins: 'I got married to Christ' zebo-the-fat 11 2134 December 7, 2018 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: Angrboda



Users browsing this thread: 17 Guest(s)